3 ms·
Is this actually a problem that anyone has -- sending workloads to untrusted servers? And why does this feel more likely to be used to perform DRM on client de
by ethbr0 5y ago
Is this actually a problem that anyone has -- sending workloads to untrusted servers?
And why does this feel more likely to be used to perform DRM on client devices in secure enclaves?
- Mindwipe 5y agoSGX already got used for DRM (it was required for UHD Blu-ray playback on PCs) and got so completely broken nobody will ever trust it for DRM use ever again, so no.
- toast0 5y agoI've used lots of servers where my employer relied on organizational trust; if you believe in the attestations, it might be nice to have those as well.
- Scene_Cast2 5y agoJust like E2E encryption, you can rely on trust, but it would be really awesome if you _didn't_ have to trust, in this case AWS or your cloud provider of choice.
- throwaway81523 5y ago> Is this actually a problem that anyone has -- sending workloads to untrusted servers? Yes, certainly, that's the whole point of HSM's (host security modules). They have been used since forever for encapsulating crypto secrets. The mapping between the number on the front of your credit card and the 3-digit CVV2 code on the back is done inside an HSM. They are cool devices to have inside servers. Having them in client computers makes them more likely to be used for evil (preventing people from controlling their own computers) as others have remarked here, unfortunately.
- ethbr0 5y agoNot my specialty, but my impression here was that they'd ballooned the functionality of the HSM into something resembling a general purpose computer? Or is this still talking about attested / secured storage more than processing?
- throwaway81523 5y agoHSM's have had computer-like capabilities since ages ago. SGX goes further and lets you run x86 apps (possibly such as media codecs) in an HSM-like "enclave".